These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Test Server Feedback

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

War Dec, Kill Reports and New Modules discussion

First post First post
Author
Zarnak Wulf
Amarrian Vengeance
Team Amarrica
#261 - 2012-05-04 16:59:48 UTC
Tsubutai wrote:
CCP SoniClover wrote:
Regarding the fueled shield booster - I doubled the effect, the cap use and the capacity. So you can carry more, each charge will be much more effective, but running the module without charges is crippling.

I don't see how that's crippling - what's to stop people from simply dropping down one size of shield booster? For example, if you were previously running an XL-boosted sleipnir, it seems that the changes would allow you to use a large fueled booster instead and get approximately the same boost amount/cap consumption as before while having more cap charges loaded and ready to burn.


Except as soon as you turn off TE shield booster it will start it's reload cycle.

Honestly - increase the capacity so we can get 6-8 cycles off of the cap charges an I would buy it.
Salpun
Global Telstar Federation Offices
SLYCE Pirates
#262 - 2012-05-04 16:59:54 UTC
CCP SoniClover wrote:
Regarding war dec - we're not creating any artificial incentives to fight a war - they are still completely open. This means some wars will absolutely have something to fight over (a POS for instance), while others will not. The reason for starting or conducting a war is still in the hands of the players, with all the pros and cons that entails. The dev blog very briefly discusses stuff we might potentially do in the future, which would give more framework to wars, but they will remain at their core as they do now. There are no plans to change that.

Regarding the fueled shield booster - I doubled the effect, the cap use and the capacity. So you can carry more, each charge will be much more effective, but running the module without charges is crippling. But IMO it needs to be that way because doubling the shield boosting effect makes it so much better stat wise to normal shield boosters and the intention is absolutely not to obsolete them in any way. I'm sure more tweaking is needed, but let's see how this plays out. From the testing I've done on the internal servers it looks promising, but as always the real test is when it's on Sisi and in the hands of you players, you with your uncanny abilities to break everything good and decent *runs away crying*


What do you concider artifical incentives?

A pre war dec decision of what are we going to put at risk to fight this war to keep Concord off our backs adds depth that the current wardec system lacks.

The attacking corp wants to destroy a pos. The War deck price includes the price of setting up a pos that the attacking corp has to defend for example.

Examples of other objectives. Access to ore/station/or system or amount of ships value destroyed. Which Concord says okay to but if who you are attacking does the same to you the war deck ends early to those deced if you do the same to your attackers you can end the war early.

Then there is real risk and reward for going to war.

If i dont know something about EVE. I check https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/ISK_The_Guide

See you around the universe.

Shandir
Indigo Archive
#263 - 2012-05-04 17:10:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Shandir
CCP SoniClover wrote:
Regarding war dec - we're not creating any artificial incentives to fight a war - they are still completely open. This means some wars will absolutely have something to fight over (a POS for instance), while others will not. The reason for starting or conducting a war is still in the hands of the players, with all the pros and cons that entails. The dev blog very briefly discusses stuff we might potentially do in the future, which would give more framework to wars, but they will remain at their core as they do now. There are no plans to change that.


Ah, got my hopes up for nothing. Does CCP even acknowledge that the current war dec mechanics are deeply flawed, and do not enable the kind of play that they are designed to create?

I'm getting a real head-in-the-sand vibe here, and I got the same vibe from the Fanfest talk. The players know that this is barely going to make a difference, and noone seems to be willing to try to solve or even acknowledge the actual problem.

Until CCP actually looks at the real problem - that the only effective defence in a wardec is to bore your attacker into submission - then they will not make wardecs a compelling part of the game.

There should be, and I keep saying this in the hopes that CCP might hear it, four key ways to handle a wardec.

Fight and Win
Fight and Lose
Hide
Surrender

And for reasons that have been explained at length before, Fight and Win is not possible, and Surrender is not even slightly effective. Not even after your changes.

All you have done is change how much it costs to initiate the game of "who gets bored first".
Ampoliros
Aperture Harmonics
#264 - 2012-05-04 17:14:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Ampoliros
Zarnak Wulf wrote:
Tsubutai wrote:
CCP SoniClover wrote:
Regarding the fueled shield booster - I doubled the effect, the cap use and the capacity. So you can carry more, each charge will be much more effective, but running the module without charges is crippling.

I don't see how that's crippling - what's to stop people from simply dropping down one size of shield booster? For example, if you were previously running an XL-boosted sleipnir, it seems that the changes would allow you to use a large fueled booster instead and get approximately the same boost amount/cap consumption as before while having more cap charges loaded and ready to burn.


Except as soon as you turn off TE shield booster it will start it's reload cycle.

Honestly - increase the capacity so we can get 6-8 cycles off of the cap charges an I would buy it.


rclick->autoreload off.

i'm somewhat concerned about what Tsubutai said as well, doubling all around is a bit too strong. I might suggest increasing the shield boost/cap use by 25% or so over the base values on Sisi now, increase the capacity by 100% as planned, and then add an extra 75-100% shield boost while it's loaded with cap chargers (if you can do that). It'll be an incredibly strong booster for 30-40 seconds while you can inject it, but go crazy inefficient once you run out (at which point you better gtfo)
Prometheus Exenthal
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#265 - 2012-05-04 17:37:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Prometheus Exenthal
@SoniClover
Okay, if you doubled all the stats I'll give you the benefit of the doubt up until Monday when it goes up P
Did you adjust the DURATION as well? Because I think that should stay put if not be a second longer.

Also, I highly recommend restricting ships to one ancillary booster.
I know they aren't the easiest things to fit, but with such mechanics tanking quite hard with multiple boosters is a real possibility.

Also get that Tengu some reduced CPU Blink

https://www.youtube.com/user/promsrage

DO YOUR JOBS, CCP DEVS. FIX THE GAME INSTEAD OF FKING IT

CCP SoniClover
C C P
C C P Alliance
#266 - 2012-05-04 17:52:18 UTC
Prometheus Exenthal wrote:
@SoniClover
Okay, if you doubled all the stats I'll give you the benefit of the doubt up until Monday when it goes up P
Did you adjust the DURATION as well? Because I think that should stay put if not be a second longer.

Also, I highly recommend restricting ships to one ancillary booster.
I know they aren't the easiest things to fit, but with such mechanics tanking quite hard with multiple boosters is a real possibility.

Also get that Tengu some reduced CPU Blink


I didn't edit the duration, I was thinking of upping the duration of the small version to 3, or even make all them 4 like the large and x-l are now, but decided to wait on that.

It's possible to make it one per ship, but cap boosters actually take quite a room in your cargo hold, so I think that's going to be the limiting factor to how easily you can sustain multiple modules.
Rivqua
Omega Wing
#267 - 2012-05-04 18:23:38 UTC
@SoniClover

I think one of the issues is that using the cap charges at the start of the fight is not benificial to the use of the fueled booster. Usually, damage goes up. Is it possible to make you choose at what point you are going to start using cap charges ?

In a scenario like that, I can see the booster being far more useful, for oshit moments.

Also, there are reports of Blue Pills not applying to the booster, bug ? Are we getting a bit variety in the mods, not just the t1 module that really is not very useful for alot of people.
Tenga Halaris
Galactic Traders Union
#268 - 2012-05-04 19:07:59 UTC
What are you planning to achieve, implementing the "fueled shield booster"?


Is it a PvP module?

Is it an option for low skill PvE Players?

Does it embrace the "Lone Wolf" solo PvP guy to fit it, instead of a Pith C-Type XL Shield Booster (160mil)

Can someone save a medslot using this mod?

Idea
Ohh Yeah
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#269 - 2012-05-04 19:38:19 UTC
CCP SoniClover wrote:

I just changed the fueled shield booster modules to give them a bit more oomph. I simply doubled the shield boost and cap use for now, that might be too much, but I think it's closer to the intended function - good temporary boost that relies on timing. But it won't probably be on Sisi until Monday (I don't think they build over the weekend).


No, I'm totally OK with this.

That turns these modules into a shield buffer support module.

In other words, you end up with a hybrid between buffer tanking (ie dual LSE vagabond, etc) and active tanking. Now, if you really wanted to, you could fit one LSE and an ancillary booster on the Vagabond. You rely on having buffer (and your speed tank), but also the ability to claw some shields back, whereas your standard Vaga has a large buffer but is forced off the field once it gets low.

I've already made a fit that takes advantage of the Manticore's extra mid slot to fit a medium ancillary booster. With the changes you've proposed, I can fit an MSE, and still be able to refresh my tank about ~60% every minute. In order to do this, I'm sacrificing an ewar utility mod like a target painter or even a tracking disruptor, but it still plays out very nicely.
Silly Slot
Phoenix Evolved Part Duo
#270 - 2012-05-04 20:10:29 UTC
CCP Punkturis wrote:
Shandir wrote:
CCP Punkturis wrote:
Salpun wrote:
I see two types of Devblogs published about new features. There are the check this out and give feedback so we can change it Devblog and the this is the way it will be until we comeback to it after Patch day Devblog.

The players are conserned about what type of Devblog will be posted next week.

People will give feed back/ threadnout with either full information, partial information or no information. What is more helpful to the Devs?


Keep up the good work but as the relationship between the Crimewatch changes and War Decs is not clear yet. And the devs seem to be focused on the formula for cost and still not focused on getting players to want to attach and defend when in a wardec state. Wardecs will remain a broken machanic.


There's a lot of assumptions in this post. We've been getting and acting on feedback on the war cost formula since our first dev blog on war decs which was posted a while ago.


Any thoughts on how you're going to address what players see as the core issue - the lack of reason to fight, lack of profit to be gained by fighting, the core fact that evading the war dec is always the smarter choice?

As someone who has been on the defending side of a wardec, I know that players want wardecs to mean something, and for the chance to *win* a hostile wardec. Please look into this asap, because changes as proposed just now are a droplet of fix in an ocean of broken.


you'll see a dev blog next weekBig smile


wait do you mean a devblog to give reasons for wars... like something to actually "risk" when u go to war, that the defending side could steal if there better than you expect and kick your A$$.
Silly Slot
Phoenix Evolved Part Duo
#271 - 2012-05-04 20:12:22 UTC
CCP SoniClover wrote:
Tenga Halaris wrote:
Extrinsic Damage Modifier II:

Should get:

30 CPU req.

10% ROF
12% Dmg

Nice mod, has a lot of potential. At the moments it's not in line with other damage mods.


I'm looking into upping this module in power. I mostly have the CPU and damage to work with, because of the way the technical backend is, I can't affect the RoF of drones. But we should be able to adjust the rest of the stats to make up for that somewhat. The goal is definitely to make this module be on par with the other damage amplifier mods.


perhaps it cud buff tracking instead of rof? make more of the dps apply?
Cryten Jones
Advantage Inc
#272 - 2012-05-04 20:16:07 UTC
Hi there,

With the new fuelled shield booster is there a benefit for having 100's over 50's loaded in it? If so can that info be detailed somewhere?
Tenga Halaris
Galactic Traders Union
#273 - 2012-05-04 20:43:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Tenga Halaris
CCP SoniClover wrote:
Tenga Halaris wrote:
Extrinsic Damage Modifier II:

Should get:

30 CPU req.

10% ROF
12% Dmg

Nice mod, has a lot of potential. At the moments it's not in line with other damage mods.


I'm looking into upping this module in power. I mostly have the CPU and damage to work with, because of the way the technical backend is, I can't affect the RoF of drones. But we should be able to adjust the rest of the stats to make up for that somewhat. The goal is definitely to make this module be on par with the other damage amplifier mods.



If ROF can't be changed, please increase the damage, because drone dwellers will, or have to use the medium slot mods.
Damage and tracking implemented in one mod would be overpowered, considering the other mods increasing damage or tracking.

tl:dr:

We already use mods inceasing range and tracking. Just increase the dmg multi and we will see how it will work. 40 CPU is too much.
Bloodpetal
Tir Capital Management Group
#274 - 2012-05-04 20:53:41 UTC
Visually there's a serious issue.

If i have a cap booster and a fuel injected shield booster loaded with cap boosters I can not tell them apart.

Where I am.

Zarnak Wulf
Amarrian Vengeance
Team Amarrica
#275 - 2012-05-04 21:03:02 UTC
The ancillary shield booster is an overly complicated shield circuit breaker. Divorce it completely from a ship's capacitor to ensure it is at least used as such.
Bloodpetal
Tir Capital Management Group
#276 - 2012-05-04 21:09:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Bloodpetal
Can someone explain this 60 second recharge on this Shield-Cap booster?

WTF is this thing supposed to do? because it's useless the way it is.

I definitely can not afford to wait 60 seconds between using a shield booster. Set the auto-reload to be off by default, because that's going to screw people up all the time.

What's the point in using a cap booster 400 or 800 if you get less cycles and they get the same result?

Where I am.

Bloodpetal
Tir Capital Management Group
#277 - 2012-05-04 23:11:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Bloodpetal
After testing a Sleipnir with an XL Anc Shield Booster and testing an XL Shield Booster with cap booster, the cap booster setup just performs better because there's a lot of other stuff that needs capacitor (such as scrams, webs, etc)... when you need it, making it more flexible.

The current situation is that it's probably best to still run a cap booster with the XL Anc shield booster.


The biggest issue with this module is that you HAVE TO USE your cap charges early in the fight, when you have the most cap. And then when you're running low on capacitor (neuted, etc), then you've run out of charges, you can't load more charges because you have a 60 second delay. And so you've blown the best part of that module when you don't need it (in full cap) and then are screwed when you do need it (you're out of cap).

SO, is there a way to maybe get this to work in a more consistent manner with when I WANT TO USE the cap boosters, and less in a manner that ties my hand when it comes to using the module?

I think the biggest issue is the 60 second reload delay, which I can understand WHY you think it needs to be there, but seriously, the damn thing blows through cap boosters so fast that the biggest issue is you're going to run out of cap boosters before you can do anything. The way I'd use this module is to have it empty when i go into the fight. as I start to suffer serious cap issues, take 10 seconds and load the cap boosters and start pumping my reps through despite the neuts/cap issues and then give them a surprise.

Setting a 10 second Cap booster delay is going to mean you can take up to 5,000 Damage in a solo fight in the time it takes to reload it and get it cycling again. That's a long time and is enough of a penalty without going up to 60 seconds.

There's a better way to balance this module without pre-nerfing it with a 60 second reload that can serious screw you up if you accidently "reload' it at the wrong time and becomes more of a liability than a blessing.

Where I am.

Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
#278 - 2012-05-05 00:01:04 UTC
I think the Drone WU needs to move to high slot to compete with guns and other drone modules.

Dust 514's CPM 1 Iron Wolf Saber Eve mail me about Dust 514 issues.

Ohh Yeah
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#279 - 2012-05-05 00:56:06 UTC
Bloodpetal wrote:
After testing a Sleipnir with an XL Anc Shield Booster and testing an XL Shield Booster with cap booster, the cap booster setup just performs better because there's a lot of other stuff that needs capacitor (such as scrams, webs, etc)... when you need it, making it more flexible.

The current situation is that it's probably best to still run a cap booster with the XL Anc shield booster.


The biggest issue with this module is that you HAVE TO USE your cap charges early in the fight, when you have the most cap. And then when you're running low on capacitor (neuted, etc), then you've run out of charges, you can't load more charges because you have a 60 second delay. And so you've blown the best part of that module when you don't need it (in full cap) and then are screwed when you do need it (you're out of cap).

SO, is there a way to maybe get this to work in a more consistent manner with when I WANT TO USE the cap boosters, and less in a manner that ties my hand when it comes to using the module?

I think the biggest issue is the 60 second reload delay, which I can understand WHY you think it needs to be there, but seriously, the damn thing blows through cap boosters so fast that the biggest issue is you're going to run out of cap boosters before you can do anything. The way I'd use this module is to have it empty when i go into the fight. as I start to suffer serious cap issues, take 10 seconds and load the cap boosters and start pumping my reps through despite the neuts/cap issues and then give them a surprise.

Setting a 10 second Cap booster delay is going to mean you can take up to 5,000 Damage in a solo fight in the time it takes to reload it and get it cycling again. That's a long time and is enough of a penalty without going up to 60 seconds.

There's a better way to balance this module without pre-nerfing it with a 60 second reload that can serious screw you up if you accidently "reload' it at the wrong time and becomes more of a liability than a blessing.


Hint: Ancillary shield boosters aren't meant to be fit without a buffer, and are not even a substitute/sidegrade for standard shield booster tanking
ValentinaDLM
SoE Roughriders
Electus Matari
#280 - 2012-05-05 01:25:05 UTC  |  Edited by: ValentinaDLM
St Mio wrote:
You guys are the best! ♥

I was going to buy you guys a cake, but it would probably get squashed by the time it gets to Iceland, so I'll just eat it for you! \☻/

Stalking Mio

And i don't care how little they help drone damage mods are reason enough to party all week.